First I thought that that's kinda mean thing to say.. then I tried to imagine that a person exactly like Trump was our top presidential candidate... or that our prime minister (who in here has the most power) would try to assure nation of his politics by letting a some sort of reporter to check if his hair is real or not... *superfacepalm*

@Sunnie
I am happy to comply. I live in Germany. Literally thousands of refugees come here every week, and there are several thousand of them in my home town. Many of them are confined to miserable camps without electricity or heating and only basic facilities. Others just linger in or around the main train station. Some basically sleep rough on the streets. I see them every day on my way to and from work; I pass families and groups and loners every day, most of them tired and exhausted and lost and scared. Dozens, perhaps hundreds of them, without shelter or enough food or anything, waiting to be handeld away into some kind of shelter.
Not once have I seen anything remotely similar to this disgusting picture. At least not among the refugees, that is - I have seen similar scenes among a huge barbecue/outdoor festival among immigrants that have been established here for a while, and among second/third generation kurdish rioters, among "natives" (especially the poor, uneducated ones) and among tourists of any nation. Oh, and recently, among those disgraceful "concerned citizens" that throw rocks at refugee camps and burn down shelters.
But the refugees? The displaced persons that are right now flooding into Germany? They have been graceful and grateful and just so relieved that they have a place where they can catch their breath for a moment without starving and fearing for their lives.

And what was the picture of? Evil people seeking asylum? Hardly - it was due to a stupid publicity stunt from an e-Commerce site that planned to give away money on the streets near the Eiffel Tower - the massive crowd ended up out of control.

Are you even surprised that what you posted turned out to be racist BS?

@Sunnie
You say "moral highground" like it's a bad thing, that there is some objection to having an iota of basic human decency.

Of course, as has been pointed out, in addition to being an affront to any reasonably decent person's sense of morality, that picture is an affront to common sense. Several objections have been already raised, but I have another to add. Study after study have shown that immigrants have a noticeably LOWER rate of crime than natural born citizens (granted, most of the ones I've seen have pertained to the US, but at least some were European, although logically it's less likely to be as much of a decrease in Europe, given how much lower crime rates in general are there, especially the murder rate), both violent and non-violent. And as HerrMetik pointed out, refugees are significantly less likely to be criminals than other immigrants.

I was originally surprised that the up votes greatly outweighed the down votes on the OP, until I realized there was likely a very high correlation between those able to see the post as the xenophobic tripe that it is, and the apathy towards up or down voting, given how little it matters. I know I don't bother, who cares? Unless specifically referenced, like this blatant attempt to troll-bait, I rarely even notice at all what votes have been cast. Also, when someone invites downvotes, it's not unlikely those that disapprove will intentionally refrain from doing so, in the belief that it is the desired result (I'd ask why, as I don't understand it, but it's too common in comments sections like this to surprise anymore, and I'm not sure I want to understand, sometimes ignorance is bliss). I know both played a role in my not voting at all. But I might be reading too much into it, after all, Trump is doing very well in the polls in the US, despite saying things that are many times higher order of magnitude in ignorance, that are in fact objectively, provably 100% false, unlike that picture (it might be incredibly misleading, but it does not specifically say that was an immigrant, or that immigrants are worse than native born, it implies it, but technically cannot be proven wrong with what it actually says - still very bad, but not nearly as bad as the blatant lies that Trump uses), but very much along the same xenophobic and/or racist lines. I like to think people are generally decent, reasonably intelligent people, but am well aware of how easy it is to give evidence to the contrary...

The real problem is that some religions and cultures encourage people to breed like rabbits. If all the Muslim countries had two children per woman instead of six or eight or ten they would not be overflowing with millions of angry young men who have no jobs and no future.

Having the responsible people take in the irresponsible is a death knell for the responsible people who choose to have only the children they can support. Their countries will be overrun, their culture destroyed, and their people wiped out.

@Sunwyn
Already 4 down votes at this moment. It is not a question of game theory and mathematics. It is, however, an issue of oversimplification and using improperly applied math to mask ones actual opinion: "I don't want them foreigners in my country!".

There is not a "real problem" of "some religions and cultures" encouraging people to "breed like rabbits". It is, for instance, not true that "Muslim countries" as a general term are "overflowing with millions of angry young men who have no jobs and no future". That is just not the case. Tunisia, Libya and other countries that were swept up by the Arab Spring did indeed have a huge problem with youth unemployment, and that was due to gross mismanagement on part of their governments. A history of ruinous economic policy has led to countries with millions of well-trained, desperate young men and women that were longing for a change. And those did, as you might have noticed, NOT flee their home countries in the millions or migrated en masse to Europe. By and large, they stayed and fought for their change, or they returned (in case they did flee) to their country in order to rebuild it.

The people fleeing from Syria right now do not leave their country because it is overpopulated and cannot support its population. We are not seeing this mass exodus because Syria was "overflowing with millions of angry young men who have no jobs and no future". Those are war refugees, not locusts. They flee their home because of violence and terror, not because there isn't enough food and work. Well, there is neither now, but that is a consequence of the same war that drove those refugees out in the first place.

Having many children is mostly a function of the economic situation, not the cultural background. The birth rate in Saudi Arabia is 2.12 children born/woman (2015 est.). Wealthy countries have lower birthrates, regardless of their religion.

So... no. The cause for this massive movement of refugees is not people fucking too much. It's people killing each other. And the claim that those countries that offer help and assistance "will be overrun, their culture destroyed, and their people wiped out" is just ridiculous in its xenophobic prejudice. That is not mathematics and game theory. That is just evil. There is plenty of food and resources available for everyone; we throw away more than they could even eat - we could literally keep them fed on our scraps alone. While it will be a burden economically, we do not have to fear housing even huge amount of refugees. As far as the part about "their culture destroyed, and their people wiped out" - what is WRONG with you? The people coming to Europe are fleeing a war in their home country; they aren't barbarian invaders bent on genocide. They are human beings, not a creeping infestation. This gets constantly dropped during such pseudo-arguments against housing refugees: They are people. They are humans.

@HerrMetik
It is about simple math.
At 1900 AD, about 0,9 million people lived in Syria. Now different estimates are between 16-24 million. If you extrapolate 110 years into the future, you would get 300-600 millions just in Syria. In 230 years, it would be 5-15 billion in Syria. I could go on, you know. But the groundwater reserves in the area are already depleting and that is not because of climate change (ground water is being depleted because of pumping, not because of evaporation). There are limits to growth and when those limits arrive, it arrives together with resource wars. So the war is just a natural consequence to natural overbreeding, a natural collapse is on its way and Europe (or anyone) can't do anything to stop it. If we let those breeders into Europe in massive numbers, then we will simply let Europe to collapse as well. Saudi Arabia oil reserves are not infinite, their time of resource limits will come in the future as well.

And as to game theory, you might be interested in the spread of terrorism (or any other cultural trait) via the Conway's Game of Life or via iterative Prisoner's Dilemma games. Tit-for-tat is quite a good strategy. Tooth-for-tooth. Limb-for-limb. Life-for-life. MAD. It is not just bacteria who are playing such games, it is superpowers as well and not playing is not rational. The only way out would be a global social contract striving for regional sustainability - one which would prohibit overbreeding and mass flocking to other regions and continents. Mass immigration destroys any regional sustainability efforts, period. Only regional biotopes supported by national states can nurture regional sustainability. Immigration has to be bounded to no more than 0,1% annually (perhaps even to no more than 0,05% annually).

@ThorsomeTarmukas You wanna know the fun part here, to start off, Syria didn't exist in the year 1900. It was part of the Ottoman empire. But let's check where those people come from: Following the Chrisitian genocides by the ottomans, a whole lot came to settle in Syria (away from modern day Turkey). Almost a 100% increase of the total population in 10 years (1910s to 1920s).

Birth rates in syria was on decline ever since the 90s. In 2009 there were a 3.1 children per mother.

@Zervo Either way 3.1 is FAR above the replacement rate for a country that already had it's resources strained before a harsh drought in 2011.

In truth I feel the entire world is overpopulated but that is neither here nor there, I suppose. This is especially the case in the USA and Western Europe, since because we have the greatest wealth we consume the most resources, with Australia being #1 on a per capita basis and the US being #2.

A population decline really isn't as scary as people make it out to be. Japan is doing fine with a population decline it has sorely needed. (Japan is the size of California, has only about 20% useable landmass, and yet it holds the population of half the USA). Furthermore it would help the working people of the world everywhere, because labor could be further automated without so much demand for the few jobs that are left to begin with. Evidence? The biggest boom for the average person in the world before World War II was in Europe in the 1400s, when, due to the Black Death wiping out a large chunk of the population, laborers were a high-demand quantity and could therefore demand a better life.

Ideally, I would think the maximum world population should be at around 5 billion, with an ideal population closer to 1 or 2 billion. I know this will not happen in my lifetime (if I am lucky). I add if I am lucky because the only way to get population to fall that far is with a major war or with a massive environmental catastrophe (and as someone who has worked at NASA, that is not as far away as it may seem.)

@txag70 " Either way 3.1 is FAR above the replacement rate for a country that already had it's resources strained before a harsh drought in 2011."

Strained resources and meager life tends to favour more children-making over not having childrens.

"A population decline really isn't as scary as people make it out to be."

Of course it is. Atleast with our current economic systems. It's not that Japan has a declining population, it is that it has a old population. Which means less people in jobs and more people in retirements, which means more budget deficiets and loaning. Eventually the bubble will burst, Japan is already having issues breaking even. And you know, economies need to grow.

To be crass, it wouldn't be a problem if a lot of Japanese old people died and the overall population went down. However the problem is that it's the young people that are getting fewer.
Immigration counteracts this to the extent that it's mostly people in the workable age whom are refugees, they are faster to educate than children and they will likley bring more childrens.

As for we need to reduce the total population on earth.
-Maybe we need another economic system. The current one focusing soley on growth for growth's sake.

@Zervo "Strained resources and meager life tends to favour more children-making over not having childrens"

This is a MAJOR problem. Education has to be a top priority to fix this.

Unfortunately there is only one way to decline a population without War or Disease -- and that is that you will inevitably end up with a population that is older for a while until the larger generation dies. I would far prefer that and stagnant economies to the alternative -- War or Disease. Or famine. The answer to budget deficits is addressing the stark reality and raising the retirement age for public pensions/social security. (I dont know if this is the case in the rest of the world) Social Security was introduced by FDR in 1935, at a starting collection age of 62. The average lifespan at the time was 61. The simple answer is that Social Security was intended to be a last resort for people who lived longer than they expected and hence ran out of retirement funds, not a crutch for everyone to retire for 10 years on. Unfortunately this is a highly unpopular view, even if it is the most realistic one.

As long as one is fine with the cultural shifts that occur with immigration, this is a workable solution. However, there really are only a handful of cultures conducive to taking in hundreds of thousands of immigrants. The USA is one of them. Canada (WOOOO HOCKEY SEASON IS ALMOST BACK) and Australia are others. Most western european cultures -- and certainly Japan -- are NOT. This is primarily because there simply isn't room for more people in Europe and Japan.

What scares me more to this line of thinking is... what happens, say, 30 or 40 years from now, when China has this problem of too many elderly and not enough people to replace them? China has grown fantastically and they have very competent (if authoritarian) leadership. We cannot simply expect China to have a forever-growing population. There aren't enough resources to support that. The reality is that unless we manage to automate everything (which we won't -- everything in 30-40 years time will be outsourced to Africa), many, many millions of Chinese will simply have to end up working to death, which will make their economy slow because there will be fewer jobs for younger Chinese people. It is sad but such is the reality of 20th century population growth.

A new economic system will not change the realities of too many people and not enough electricity/food/water/land.

TL;DR too many people, not enough resources, but I would prefer a sluggish economy to any of the alternatives.

@txag70 "This is a MAJOR problem. Education has to be a top priority to fix this."

Oh yea, but you know, funds are required. And we cannot forsee events that will cause massive local drops in education.

"and that is that you will inevitably end up with a population that is older for a while until the larger generation dies."

But the inevitable economic collapse will quite probably kickstart a chain of events leading to a surge in birth rates, which means that the problem will only temporarily be fixed.

"raising the retirement age for public pensions/social security."

Is the most realistic approach to budget deficiets. Also a serves as bandaid on the issue of overpopulation, as it is one of the few actions that won't end in destabilized countries (which will again, surge the birth rates).

"Most western european cultures"

Meh, I was recently in Czech republic, took a train ride, and sure. There are plenty of towns and villages compared to home, but if anything, there's room. Abandoned structures a plenty there. The sky is the limit.

Meanwhile in my municipality we have a population density of 1.16 human beings per square km.

"not enough electricity/food/water/land."

Only food and water are real issues. If there were sufficient interest in clean and near limitless electricity we could make it happen. However, it's not economically justifiable. As for land.
Well skyscrapers, taller and bigger.
If all of Europe had their cities smashed and replaced with predominantly skyscrapers, we'd save square kms in laughable quantities. However, again, economics and historically significant buildings.

@Zervo "only food and water are real issues". well...do I really need to go any farther than this?
Electricity -- well with nuclear power we could get there but still, it would take a few decades to "make it happen".

It is possible to have a population decline without an economic collapse. High wages, and just enough automation to control rapid price inflation are the name of the game there.

@Zervo By high wages, I mean high wages for lower-skill jobs -- that is, restricting automation in such a manner that demand for labor is kept high enough to increase wages -- will help cushion the blow of a smaller workforce. As the workforce shrinks, one can automate slowly as a measure against runaway inflation. And of course, as we automate, we can reap the benefits of people being more geared towards non-menial and more creative/designing work.

I am a strong proponent of nuclear power as a baseload and renewables as competitors that can slowly replace it over time as they become baseload-applicable. I don't understand what environmentalists have against nuclear power. After all -- its a measure of the "least bad" option right now. Coal needs to be replaced NOW to fight global warming -- not later. Coal is used for baseload power, which solar/wind cannot reliably do. So it comes down to oil vs. natural gas vs. nuclear. The "free market" answer is natural gas, which is over 50% cleaner than coal -- but still not great. The best answer to preserve the environment is nuclear. The one we will get is oil -- because our multinational corporate rulers will make it so.
What makes me very nervous is countries like Germany ending their nuclear power programs and subsequently switching back to coal -- which, by the way, is both more radioactive and carcinogenic than uranium -- because fossil fuel industries have been waging a fearmongering campaign against nuclear since the 70's.

Frankly, I'm indifferent, I can see the point of it in certain places. However solar energy has so much potential. What is also annoying with large electrical companies activly counter acting costumers instaling solar panels as private ventures.

However, note that there's a vast consumption of fossil fuel to mine the Uranium too (or whatever else material may be used). Which (unlike say installation of solar power or wind power) will still be a constant drain, as you can't run nuclear plants without uranium. And it's non-recyclable.

@Zervo
Whether Czech have more room and resources or not can only be assessed via ecological footprint analysis. Greenland has a lot of free undeveloped area, but the local environment would not support many, at least not at present. The same with Karelia, the share of arable land in Karelia is simply too little. The same with the Canadian Shield. And mankind should not use up all the natural resources.

Outer space is infinite, but even an infinite space would not support a constant eternal population growth, the growth would still need to slow down.

@Zervo
/* "Whether Czech have more room and resources or not can only be assessed via ecological footprint analysis."

Are we seriously going to start to care about that only because people with brown skin "invades"? */

Absolutely, because that is the only way to avoid collapse.

"Seriously though, have you ever heard of the word import?"
That is part of the ecological footprint analysis.

"Again, are we seriously going to start giving a crap because Europe might have their population increased by a single procentual unit."

There is a fundamental disagreement that you don't seem to grasp.
All the talk about how Europe is becoming old and should have higher birth rates and/or more immigrants to increase its population are all to support the financial BAU (business as usual) Ponzi scheme(s). So the BAU demand more consumption, thus also more waste and more emissions. While the ecological footprint analysis requires that Europe either decrease its consumption and/or decrease its population. This disagreement goes to the very core of the issue (several issues) that Europe is struggling with. The financial pyramid scheme logic demands geometric growth, while ecological models demand immediate reduction and eventual stabilisation.

I am quite sure that contemporary Syrians live better than estonians did 100 years ago. Estonians were able to stop population growth already 100 years ago. Thus, the 'living conditions' you speak of are not absolute, but relative to other countries - which in turn means that Syrians should understand their problems and stop breeding at their current wealth levels. If they do not learn the lesson, then their population will crash.

Okay... But again, current crisis means less people in the middle east so, the overall ecological footprint remain pretty much the same. Besides, Europe is significantly better at keeping low ecological footprints compared to the less developed middle east.

Quite possibly, at to bad conditions people leave. And of course better living conditions will attract immigrants. It's called emigration when you emigrate to greener pastures. Doesn't mean that birth rates were lower.
And of course living conditions aren't absolute. It's set in context with contemporary standards, and relative to countries whitin range of communication.

"then their population will crash."

Their total population number wasn't even remotly the reason it became torn apart in a civil war.

"Their total population number wasn't even remotly the reason it became torn apart in a civil war."

You are mistaken.
The Syrian civil war started from escalating water scarcity which led to drought and crop failures, which led to millions of country folks migrating to the cities, which led to (food) riots, which led to the heavy hand of Assad, which eventually led to the civil war. The problems were exacerbated by the global AGW trend and the accompanying aridification (desertification) trend of the middle east. However, the groundwater was dwindling because of water pumping, not because of evaporation. The civil war coincided with the moderate El Ninos of 2007 and 2010 which both elevated food prices due to global food market shocks on extreme climate events. Those poor countryfolks did not have enough money to buy ever more expensive food.

So for all purposes it was overpopulation - the country could not feed its population.

"But again, current crisis means less people in the middle east so, the overall ecological footprint remain pretty much the same."

Once the regional ecological collapse is on its way, it will stabilise on a much lower level - meaning that the ecological footprint of the inhabitants would also have to stabilise on a much lower level. Possibly many times lower.

As to Europe, that depends on the subsidy system, if the subsidy system stimulates immigrants to have more children than local natives, then it would make the problems worse. The subsidy system must prefer natives.

Maybe you didn't read what you just typed but you just blamed drought. And for that matter the war was hardly inevitable. Going from violence level 2 to violence level 699 in 2 seconds is 99% of the time not a good idea.

"Once the regional ecological collapse is on its way"

And what evidence do you have for this thesis? What evidence do you even have for a local ecological collapse has occured in Syria? And do you take into account that massive ground deformation can contribute to an increased biodiversity and floral reclaimation?

"subsidy system must prefer natives"

How is this even relevant? A subsidy system priorotizing natives will create a serious social divide between "non-natives" and "natives". Which again, will have the poor side making more children to spread economical disadvantage on a wider population.

Actually I start to see how you're on about 10% immigration being problematic. It's not the immigrants per se, it's you're policies that will wreck your day.

"Maybe you didn't read what you just typed but you just blamed drought. And for that matter the war was hardly inevitable. Going from violence level 2 to violence level 699 in 2 seconds is 99% of the time not a good idea."

Drought was a result of a long period of dwindling water reserves and rapidly increasing population. Once the resources dry up, it's war, as simple as that.

"And what evidence do you have for this thesis? What evidence do you even have for a local ecological collapse has occured in Syria?"

Full evidence will be post-factum.
I have already given the current evidence more than once. GRACE satellite gravimetric data. Population explosion data.

"And do you take into account that massive ground deformation can contribute to an increased biodiversity and floral reclaimation?"

Huh?

/* A subsidy system priorotizing natives will create a serious social divide between "non-natives" and "natives". Which again, will have the poor side making more children to spread economical disadvantage on a wider population. */

The poor side in the nordic region will usually die off, either quickly or slowly. You should have ample examples in any of the Nordic histories.

@ThorsomeTarmukas "Drought was a result of a long period of dwindling water reserves"

Which happens every few decades. It happened when the population of syria was below 900 000 people to. War because of food shortages happened back then as well.

"Full evidence will be post-factum."

so what evidence do you have for Syrian ecology is failing? Drought that has affected the region and elsewhere since times immemorial?

"Population explosion data."

Isn't a valid claim. You've yet to show any evidence on how it corrolates between drought and population explosion. It's all assumptions, and doesn't tell anyone why it didn't happen before the 2010s. And it doesn't explain why north africa and most of the middle east was set ablaze by the arab spring either.

"Huh?"

Guess not.

"The poor side in the nordic region will usually die off"

SIGH... give me a single example where poor people "died off". They either got a better economy or they started riots. And you only need to look towards Syria to see what happens when you try to fix riots through violence.

/* "Drought was a result of a long period of dwindling water reserves"

Which happens every few decades. It happened when the population of syria was below 900 000 people to. */

A drought in the Middle East in the 1900s? If there ever was one as strong as the latest one, it impacted the amount of surface water, not the groundwater. Sahara became a desert with the help of human civilisation, even though the groundwater basin remained.

"so what evidence do you have for Syrian ecology is failing?"

The artificial environment of the local human civilisation is failing due to the dwindling groundwater reserves (according to the GRACE satellite). Groundwater reserves are being used more and more because of the rising populations and because of the depletion of surface water reserves.

/* "Population explosion data."

Isn't a valid claim. You've yet to show any evidence on how it corrolates between drought and population explosion. */

It is a valid claim. There is no need for any additional evidence. Read above. Or below:
Rising population -> loss of surface water and loss of groundwater.
Only the humans are able to cause the loss of groundwater.
Drought is merely the last straw.

@ThorsomeTarmukas "Drought was a result of a long period of dwindling water reserves"

Which happens every few decades. It happened when the population of syria was below 900 000 people to. War because of food shortages happened back then as well.

"Full evidence will be post-factum."

so what evidence do you have for Syrian ecology is failing? Drought that has affected the region and elsewhere since times immemorial?

"Population explosion data."

Isn't a valid claim. You've yet to show any evidence on how it corrolates between drought and population explosion. You blame water pumping but also recognize that there's been recent enviromental effects decreasing water supply.
It's all assumptions, and doesn't tell anyone why it didn't happen before the 2010s. And it doesn't explain why north africa and most of the middle east was set ablaze by the arab spring either.

"The poor side in the nordic region will usually die off"

Give me a single example where poor people "died off". They either scraped by as most do in their situation, got a better economy or they started riots. And you only need to look towards Syria to see what happens when you try to fix riots through violence.

You are forgetting that with dwindling water reserves and resources (and consequently fading topsoil), the regional populations should already be in a long decline.

So don't expect compassion from math-savvy individuals towards Syrian families with lots of children. The most rational syrian families would voluntarily have 1 child per family - they are the ones perhaps worth saving. Compassion is saved for the chimpanzees and gorillas who are getting extinct and not a single humanitarian sheds a single tear about it lately. It is all about the prolific breeders.

To overturn my claim you only need to show that Syria's population has not risen >2x in less than a century.

/* "the regional populations should already be in a long decline."

Eh, nope. Rather the opposite are usually true. */

You misunderstood. Yes, usually populations get bigger. But with dwindling resources, populations should get smaller to avoid the inevitable crash.

Look up the swings of population dynamics models based on the golden ratio - the closer to the limits to growth the population grows, the lower it falls.

"Math-savvy? Entitled much?"

As I recall, the math of exponential growth was around 6th grade, square polynomial functions were at around 7-8th grade, but the number sequence prediction tasks were already given at the entrance exams to the 1st grade. I haven't taken PISA or TIMSS tests, but my 8th grade state math exam was 100%. I could redo all the math tasks later on in my head (not just that specific exam, but all math tasks during all schoolyears). So, yes, I can spot elementary math deficiencies in others.

"Did you ever consider that having lots of children is a survival strategy."

For some animal species. Predator species (wolves, for example) are usually capable of regulating their own population size.
It is quite likely that the human species (at least the prolific ones) are in that regard more stupid than any other predator with a spine.

/* *Humanitarians* are not necissarly Chimpanzeesarians. */

Precisely!
In this context, humanitarians are quite racist, to be exact.
The so-called humanitarians only care for individuals of homo sapiens, while disregarding the well-being of populations of homo sapiens and of all other species altogether.

@ThorsomeTarmukas "To overturn my claim you only need to show that Syria's population has not risen >2x in less than a century."

I don't intend to overturn the claim, I intend to regard it as being irrelevant.

"populations should get smaller to avoid the inevitable crash. "

Oh? And exactly how does one achieve this end? Who decides what part of the population is no longer needed? Are you in a insane belief that anyone would want to decrease their population? Given all the massive economical drawbacks that follows.

"For some animal species. Predator species (wolves, for example) are usually capable of regulating their own population size."

By dying from starvation, yes. Not a self regulation thing as it is totally out of the hand of any individual.
Obviously Humanity has partly overruled natural regulation, something no other spicies to date has achieved. And you call our spiecies stupid? Arrogant is a far better description if there's to be any laid out.

"In this context, humanitarians are quite racist, to be exact."

If favouring preserving the life ones own kin is racist, go ahead and call yourself a racist.

And being a humanitarian doesn't negate being for preservation of other animal spiecies.

However argueing that certain humans shouldn't be allowed to continue their existence however argueing for ones own continued existence rules out being a humanitarian.

Oh? And exactly how does one achieve this end? Who decides what part of the population is no longer needed? Are you in a insane belief that anyone would want to decrease their population? */

That is the matter of the social contract. Yes, the society as a whole has an interest to check the population growth. China has done it. The rest of the growing world has to do it as well, sooner or later.

"Obviously Humanity has partly overruled natural regulation, something no other spicies to date has achieved. And you call our spiecies stupid? Arrogant is a far better description if there's to be any laid out."

Human species is stupid when compared to the wolves or lions or tigers.

"And being a humanitarian doesn't negate being for preservation of other animal spiecies."

It does, if one prefers one african or syrian over one chimp.
Africans are directly competing with the chimps for the lebensraum.

"However argueing that certain humans shouldn't be allowed to continue their existence however argueing for ones own continued existence rules out being a humanitarian."

I have not argued about individuals. I have argued on the level of populations. Rights are relative to populations.

Because they were completley unable to actually you know.. keep people from being poor.
As the average Chinese get wealthier and enjoy higher standards of living the birth rate has slowed down as well.
But tell me how effective is their programs really? Does it lead to less children being born or does it lead to more abandoned infants, infanticides or children simply hidden from authorities?

"Human species is stupid when compared to the wolves or lions or tigers."

Beacause we don't starve to death?

"Africans are directly competing with the chimps for the lebensraum."

"Africans".. And no, they don't. Habitation destruction isn't something that all africans contribute to or is responsible for. It's not something that is required for their own continued existance either. So there's zero problems with being for the continued existance of "Africans" and for the continued existance of chimps.

But if you wanna be like that:
You are directly competing with x number of creatures and plants for lebensraum.

"I have not argued about individuals. I have argued on the level of populations"

Tell me the difference? Exactly how are you going to decrease "level of populations" by not affecting individuals.

"Tell me the difference? Exactly how are you going to decrease "level of populations" by not affecting individuals."

With the one-child policy.

The difference is between the Tragedy of the Commons and a working Social Contract.
The difference is between that of Nash equilibrium, Pareto and Hicks.

Unchecked individualism will doom the population, it is game theory 101.
And the problem is that "human rights" neglect the population part, even the parts that has been written into the international conventions on war and especially genocide. There is no genocide at the level of individuals, there is genocide only at the level of populations. The so-called "humanitarians" are willing to carry out genocides on populations under the flag of "saving" millions of individuals. It is a classic Tragedy of the Commons.

/* "Africans".. And no, they don't. Habitation destruction isn't something that all africans contribute to or is responsible for. It's not something that is required for their own continued existance either. So there's zero problems with being for the continued existance of "Africans" and for the continued existance of chimps. */

The fight for lebensraum has been going on for millions of years and not just in Kongo. Google: fossil apes of Europe

As far as I know, almost all African countries have increasing populations, most "war refugees" stem from African countries and most of those refugees get refuge in other African countries. It is sufficient to note that there is always war in some parts of Africa to put pressure on the african great apes. The impacts of fighting between (proto-)mongols and chinese changed the populations in Europe, Arabia and India.

@HerrMetik "Wealthy countries have lower birthrates, regardless of their religion."
That's because if you have more people, each gets less of the money there is to have. In Balkan countries that suffered most casualties from wars, there's a lot of people that have several houses, guess why.
And now we're expected to give these houses to people that killed our people in the first place?
Realize that Ottoman empire lasted all the way into 1924 and what makes you think Islam itself changed since then? Nobody thinks neo-Nazis are "just innocent women and children who want to improve our economy". It's the same thing.

@Sunwyn SIGH... Check figures for syria and you'd notice that birth rate has been in decline for decades, this because living standards improved.

Just like everwhere else in the world where living standards improved. Your great great grandparents I'd guarantee that they also "reproduced like rabbits". Guess why? Oh and the Chrisitan church line (back then and to a extent, now), as well as the then current consensus was "get lots of children".

@Sunwyn I agree that I oversimplified but the reality is that the world is suffering a population overshoot. It has nothing to do with race. The results will be devastating. The fact is that the massacre in Rwanda is directly due to overpopulation. The criminals who incited it promised more land once the Tutsis were gone. Lebensraum, anyone?

The chocolate you love is made from cacao beans picked by slave children. One child was rescued by anti-slavery activists and returned to his mother. She told them she couldn't afford to feed him, she had sold him so she could buy food for his nine siblings.

I have been reading about this for the last 50 years. Please go out and read a couple hundred books about population explosions and their consequences.

@Sunwyn That is simply not true. Before the civil war and ISIS Syria's population was actually shrinking. The amount of children born per woman has to do with the economic stability of a country not religion. In the world today the average is 2,5 compared with the average of 2 in Europe, Syria was a modern country not too unlike a European one.

@PAndersson No... it is true. Syria's population was 6.4 million in 1970, 9 million in 1980, 12.5 million in 1990, 16.4 million in 2000 and 21.5 million in 2010. Not really slowing down within that time frame. It has only stopped growing since 2010, by which point there was already a severe drought and large-scale unrest.

Growth from 1970-1980: 2.6 million
Growth from 1980-1990: 3.5 million
Growth from 1990-2000: 3.9 million
Growth from 2000-2010: 5.1 million

'@Sunwyn'
What the heck are you even talking about? Fertility rates have nothing to do with anything in the Middle East. The only countries with really high fertility rates like you're saying are Oman and Yemen, neither of which are providing the refugees to Europe (Oman isn't even having problems of any kind).
Just because apparently actually looking up information is hard for some people here's the fertility rates in the muslim Middle East.
Turkey: 2
Syria: 3
Lebanon: 1-2
Jordan: 2-3
Iraq: 4-5
Libya: 3-4
Tunisia: 2
Algeria: 2
Morocco: 3
Iran: 2
Azerbaijan: 2-3
Oman: 6
Yemen: 7

The region of the world with high ass fertility in the modern day is tropical Africa. Also holy lol at "responsible" you understand nothing about fertility studies. You know what's responsible? Doing your research before opening your mouth on serious issues.

@TehZoi Those are people foolishly living by the words of a book written in the context of an age that has little resemblance with ours. A time with (wild estimate, don't quote me on this) I'd guess a world population of about one million. If that biblical character who said "go forth and multiply" found out people still live by his words in a time with a world population exceeding billions, I'm sure he would facepalm. And yes, many religious Americans, too, are too foolish to realise this, as is the pope who still preaches against contraception.

@Sunwyn I definitely agree that we can't just accept people and have them breed like rabbits here. But that doesn't mean we can't accept them at all. We can take in people from breed-like-rabbit countries as long as we put a legal upper limit to the number of children someone can get. Three seems reasonable. Also only give child support for the first two and already make it less for the second than for the first one.
Sure, there may be side effects, but I'd say even China's one-child policy with all it's side effects has probably been worth the population growth limitation it achieved. Don't wanna think about what kind of clusterf*** China would have been without it. And what kind of clusterf*** any other country may become if we keep allowing people to breed like rabbits.
Finally, don't make any you-can-stay-because-of-your-child decisions. In the Netherlands sometimes families are supposed to be sent back, but the child was born and raised here, and sometimes consequently the whole family gets to stay. I'd say send the parents back and give the kid the choice between their parents and Europe. If they're too young to make the choice, maybe let the parents stay temporally until they reach a certain age, but definitely not permanently. And yes, either option has some level of cruelty, but it's the only way to not give refugees a perverted incentive to breed in our refugee centers.

Edit: sorry for the wall of text, TL;DR: I mostly are with you, but I've got a few ideas how we can accept refugees from breed-happy countries abs still keep breeding to a minimum.

....as an escape from all the depressing things going on with the Syrian refugee crisis (here in Finland, peoples reactions have been really fucking depressing), you should totally make a strip about the Welsh weatherman correctly pronouncing Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, and how the rest of the world is totally amazed at how a Welsh guy is able to speak his own language. Inspiring and funny at the same time.

Our economy is approaching total collapse day by day. The government just announced massive cuts to many, many departments. It's one thing to live in a dreamworld where money never runs out, and another thing to live in the cold, harsh reality.
THAT is why peoples' reactions are "fucking depressing."

The only thing that really sucks for Finland is the trade deficit. The reason for that is largely the collapse of Nokia, we had foolishly based our economic growth almost entirely on Nokia. When Nokia collapsed, so did Finnish economy.

All of this is irrelevant though. The "reactions" that I refered to as "fucking depressing" were not only the ones relating to economy (although the amount of Finns who think of refugees merely as numbers instead of human beings *is* fucking depressing). Those reactions were even more so the death threats, rape threats and all other various threats targeted at people who try to help the refugees. As well as calling the situation at Mediterranean a "Sea Taxi Sevice". And calling the refugees "living standard surfers". And asking why the "young men" who are arriving in Europe are not fighting for their country (within the ranks whichever fundamentalist semi- to fully terrorist army is closest to their own personal ideology). What you and all the other nay sayers don't seem to realise, is that the refugee crisis is primarily a human crisis, and only secondarily an economic one.

@Zervo
Why is to me do not think that Hungary will suffer from the absence of a couple of hundreds of thousands of unemployed Arabs, which is not something that hungarian, even the english do not knows.

'@blacksupremacist'
Yeah it sucks shit mate. Gonna take my Italian-Irish-English ass around the city tomorrow, maybe stop by the Chinese grocer, eat Ethiopian for dinner, with my Cypriot wife alongside probably one member or another of all four flags pictured in this terribly stupid gif. In a state run by an Irishman, with a Russian Jewish senator.
Goddamn I am so jealous of homogenous central European former soviet bloc countries right now. They really know what's up.

'@sagas' so i take it tha you think that letting in millions of asylum seekers is not bad for germany a country that already has very much unintegrated migrants? especially when aI lot of them arent legit refugees and theres even thousands of jihadists in the mix acording to isis

ps: i don't mean to insult but your passive agresifeness is rlly just pathetic
pps: i also forgive your ignorance since you're an american and probably don't know jack shit about the situation in europe and also because americans arent known for their intellicence.

'@blacksupremacist'
I too listen to ISIS propaganda.
Also I know more about the world than you probably know about all subjects combined. Let alone the situation in Europe and Syria. I bet you don't even know why Hungary is on the receiving end of so much refugee traffic.
Also it's precisely because I'm from the Western Hemisphere that Europe's immigration hysteria is so laughable. It's easy to mock the US I know, babby country that is still a toddler by European metrics. But on this issue it is we who are the wisened old sages young one. And by we I count the Canadians, Brazilians, Argentinians etc. as well.
War and economic refugees? My goodness, why we've never heard the like of such things! You sure know all about the New World!

'@blacksupremacist'
So you have no idea why Hungary is a traffic center at all huh?
Hint: It has to do with geography.

Why the Americas are wisened sages on immigration. Hmm. Well let me put it this way, you know all these conversations going on in Europe right now? We were having them like...a century ago. Earlier even in some cases. Hell when it comes to the super homogenous places like Hungary I would hazard saying they're at a place we were at at least two centuries ago.
Of course none of us (not the US, not Canada, and certainly not Latin America) were ever homogenous nation states. Of course historically neither was anywhere in the world except maybe the Korean peninsula lol. But Romantic Nationalism really did a number on Europe's psyche.

Also I should add this basic summary of what I'm getting at:
When it comes to class issues, America is weak and Europe is strong.
Europe had to contend with nobility, societal decimation in WW2, and such things. Because it had worse class issues originally it has become experienced in dealing with them. Whereas the US is awkward as hell and still learning, we got lazy and fat on our less problems in that category.
However when it comes to issues of diverse race and ethnicity? America is strong and Europe is weak. Because we had actual major diversity and continue to have more and more, because we had such awful things as racial based slavery as well of course...we have had to confront and deal with these types of issues. Whereas Europe has (say it with me) gotten lazy and fat on their less problems in that category.
I'm obviously not saying Europe has no class problems, of course it does. And obviously America still has problems with race and ethnic/religious diversity, of course we do.
But the gaps in experience are vast. Feel free to laugh at idiot Americans you meet online ranting about SOCIALIZM DESTROYING AMERICA. You have every right. I meanwhile will join with you on that as well as laugh at Europeans running around terrified of immigrants.

'@sagas'
-.- you stupid? of course its about geography, since as i said, hungary was not th destination but a place to go through. if they wanna go to germany they gotta go through hungary or its neighbours to get ther.

And is racial diversity within a country a good thing that'd you'd strive for? If so, why?

"Europeans running around terrified of immigrants."

Nobody in Europe minds regular immigrants. Grouping them with refugees and especially wellfare refugees is either foolish or intentionally misleading.

'@blacksupremacist'
No you're not following me. Hungary isn't the only country on the way to Germany, so why is it receiving the brunt of traffic? Do you know the lay of the land?
Strive is the wrong word exactly, but certainly experience with it makes a country know what the hell it is doing in situations like this. Makes them less stupidly xenophobic when faced with change like Hungary.

"Nobody in Europe minds regular immigrants. Grouping them with refugees and especially wellfare refugees is either foolish or intentionally misleading."

Oh and I suppose all you folks when you came over here and became so many of us were suit and tie wearing middle class folks just getting a new position. And were absolutely not fleeing from warzones, dictators, and oh yes economic crap. As I recall the phrase was that our streets were "paved with gold". Even bigger lol if you think all of them came over legally and played nice and legit on arrival.

'@blacksupremacist'
Aw, baby Sweden no no how live with different levels of religion. Baby Sweden call heself big growed up secular country! But no actually no what "secular" means! So confwusing!

NO THESE PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS CHARACTER WILL RUIN OUR SECULAR STATE WITH THEIR DIFFERENCE lol, the definition of not getting it.

Ten million bucks says you'll never know even a fraction of religious fundamentalism the US goes about on it's usual Republican election campaign.

I like how you imagine none of these people will get jobs and thus pay back into the system. They're going to have the kids who actually pay for your retirement you ungrateful clyde.

And uh, please read absolutey anything about American immigration history. Because it sounds like you think it was a bunch of English people who killed Indians, and then that was it the end. No one else came from Europe ever, of any other sort or kind. (hint: this is not what happened at all)

A large portion of this crisis lays at the hands of the USA. I am sure I will get a lot of angry Americans that disagree, and as an American I must accept their criticism. But to understand why I say this is to understand the last 50 or so years of US-Mideast policy. We have been a destabilizing force in that region since the late 1960s, when we supported Israel in the Six-Day (and later Yom Kippur) wars. This stirred up (rightfully or not -- thats another debate for another time) anti-US resentment in the middle east in the 1970s which culminated with dictators that would come to power by railing against the US then immediately switching to a more cooperative tone when in office. A few examples? Iran with the Ayatollah. People don't realize that the same Ayatollah that overthrew the Shah in 1979 was the very one we provided weapons with in the 1980s to fight Iraq -- interestingly enough, we also supplied Iraq, then led by Saddam, another dictator that publicly railed against America but was more than willing to work with our arms dealers, during the Iran-Iraq war, which killed millions and ended up moving the border of Iran and Iraq virtually nowhere.

Why does the above matter? Well, because Saddam had virtually bankrupted the country after the eight-year war with Iran. So he turned to Kuwait and made the case that Kuwait was nothing more than a Western-puppeted petrostate. We implicitly told Saddam that we would turn a blind eye and not fight him if he invaded Kuwait in the Bush I years. Guess what? We lied and went in for Desert Storm. Why is this relevant to the crisis? Keep going. The war is a success for the USA, but Bush I decided to pack up shop -- a VERY wise idea -- without deposing Saddam. While this did result in another decade of his bloody dictatorship (ask the Kurds about that), it also prevented a power vacuum from forming in the middle east, because Saddam was able to keep a then-also depleted Iran at bay.

But Bush I was seen as a pansy by the American electorate for not "finishing the job" and got booted for this and other reasons (Ross Perot) in 1992 after 1 term. Fast forward 9 years to 9/11. From Day 1, the Bush II administration wanted to link 9/11 to Iraq, in particular Saddam. I have inside sources -- ones that I can't reveal because of their status related to the US government -- but basically Bush II wanted to finish what his father started, and Cheney (who some argue had the real power in that administration, especially in the first term) wanted to help his friends at Halliburton. So they went on a media campaign to invade Iraq, and, shamefully, it worked brilliantly. Even the New York Times was duped/bullied into supporting the invasion. What does this have to do with the refugee crisis?

Well, after the US kicked Saddam out of power, and ironically declared "mission accomplished" for a quagmire that we still are stuck in today, Iraq was kept from civil war only by the US, which supported a Shiite government that unfairly treated Sunnis. We basically kept this government in place until we left a few years ago. And when we left, it unraveled fast, because the Iraqi Sunnis found a movement that treated them more like what they were used to during the Saddam years -- Da'esh. As it gained power, Da'esh took advantage of popular protests in other middle eastern countries (namely Syria) and turned what were initially protests against a repressive government that we have implicitly supported at times to turn the country into a full-blown civil war. Our current president has been, in my opinion, overly idealistic in the protests against the dictators of the middle east since 2011. Qaddafi, Assad, Mubarak, Ben-Ali... these were all dictators that were clueless at best and evil at worst. But they were stable. The implosion of all of them at once leads to an enormous power vacuum, which Da'esh seems to be filling.

TL;DR we are to blame for a lot of this mess because Bush booted Saddam after supporting him for decades, creating a power vacuum. We added to this power vacuum by Obama supporting the protesters of dictators, including the ones fighting Assad, similar to Saddam. As a result, civil wars are occurring all over the middle east -- the worst in Syria due to Da'esh -- and anyone with a shred of sanity or means is high-tailing it the hell out of there.

What should we do? Well... realpolitik. Ideally, join the Russians and Iran and get Assad back in power. That sounds horrible but I would take an evil dictator over an evil, more amorphous organization like Da'esh. Support an independent Kurdistan, and partition what's left of Iraq into two proxy states, a Sunni state which is a proxy of Saudi Arabia, and a Shiite state which is a proxy of Iran. And stop (publicly) supporting Israel so much. I'd prefer to support Israel because they are stable and developed -- but for this reason they do not need our help against regimes that are most certainly less stable and more undeveloped. Let them fight it out, as they are in Yemen. Barbaric and violent? Yes. But I prefer my barbaric violence to be containable. The US should not support an idealistic "spread democracy" policy. The US should support a policy that serves AMERICAN INTERESTS ONLY. We are not the spreaders of democracy, and we never have been. It's a hollow lie, always has been.

'@txag70'
Problem is though the main country in question is Syria, so um...that one's more or less off out hands.
Syria spent the Cold War as a Russian proxy, so they were outside our influence (unlike yes Iraq). The recent upheaval there came from native fractures. Even ISIS while in their infancy a product of the Iraq war...only became as it is because of the Syrian chaos.
This one lands at the feet of Russia, Iran, and kinda sorta China a little bit.
I do think Obama has been sloppy and inconclusive in his reactions to this war, the infamous red line stuff for instance.
Also in a much longer back sense this is the fault of...France! And the UK, in that these countries are very poorly organized post-Ottoman frankensteins.

That being said I think you're getting at an important point. The Cold War was an ugly ugly thing where the West and Soviet bloc played chess using the rest of the world as pieces, leading to lots of terrible things in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Middeast.
Now that the Cold War has ended it's remarkable to note the progress three of these regions have made. Many dictatorships collapsed once American or Soviet backing vanished, Latin America is now nearly all democratic aside from Cuba for instance. Where it once was a land of American backed dictators.

The one exception? Where international relations still resembles the Cold War? Is the Middeast. Where the West still openly supports dictators, where tiny hot wars pop up in response to cold wars among higher powers, and all these such things.
And while yes the US and western powers hold some blame, let's not forget the local powers. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Who have meddled and abused nearly as much among their tinier neighbors. The latter two in particular are playing out their own miniature cold war as enemies.

@sagas That sounds about right. But the creation of a power vacuum is the serious reason Da'esh exists, and if Saddam and Assad still had iron fists to rule they would not exist. (BTW I was told to say Da'esh instead of ISIS because it irritates those halfwit barbarians.)

Ideally, I'd like to end our footprint in the middle east, but it isn't feasible. The power vacuum has to be filled by SOMETHING. I'd prefer it to be, for lack of a better term, "contained evil" (read: Assad)

It is true though that the very existence of places like Iraq can be traced back to the imperialist days of the UK and France, when they basically said "sectarian problems? Naaah those won't be an issue!"

Truth be told if other countries want to support dictators at their own expense, that's fine by me. Let the Russians and Iranians pay to keep Assad in power. One more thing that isn't our problem.

Either way...

As an American who seems to understand foreign policy, who do you like as POTUS for 2016?
I like Jim Webb. I think Pataki isn't bad, or Kasich, but in today's lunatic GOP they won't get support. I appreciate Bernie Sanders because he is genuine but he wouldn't address the national debt and I feel like he would make the same foreign policy mistakes Obama has made the last 7 years. Larry Lessig is OK but I don't know much about him.

Hillary and Jeb need to be tossed into the scrapheap of failed politicians. Trump is the equivalent of switching from injecting heroin to smoking it to avoid getting sick -- trying to end a government bought off by billionaires by electing a billionaire is completely nonsensical.

@sagas I disagree entirely. Da'esh is spawned from Iraq, but the civil war in Syria allowed it to get footsteps in Syria. Saddam would have crushed Da'esh like a grape under his merciless but stable rule.

'@txag70'
Al Qaeda Iraq is what you're referring to, yes that was the earlier form of ISIS. But they had been essentially put out of commission and were in a moribund state.
The violence that erupted in Syria gave them a second chance at life they would not have otherwise had.
And that violence is entirely the fault of Bashar al Assad and his iron fisted regime.

The supporting and backing of dictatorships is one of the leading cause of instability in the region. Period. Not just American bombs, but the complicity acceptance of Arab dictators existing to control their people.
It has even been suggested that the rise of modern Fundamentalist groups like ISIS and AQ is because of this. That Arab dictators have at turns destroyed or co-opted the old order of religious figures and scholars. Leading to them being discredited or non-existent as the case may be. Creating a furious and frustrated vacuum wherein extremists grew.
Saddam was a genocidal maniac who invaded Iran, attempted to wipe out Iraqi Kurds, and did severe environmental damage to attack the Shias in the south of Iraq.
He was not Josip Broz Tito or Deng Xiaoping. He was not a stability dictator. He was the opposite.

If you're trying to get thumbs up from Arabs by calling them Daesh, you should probably also not support their living under violent dictators because they need to be controlled.

We should call them Daesh and not IS or ISIL because the terroists hate it if we do that. They even threaten to cut ones throat out if someone calls them Daesh.

Well but why you would ask? Well im playing mister nice guy and using google for you, youre welcome.

1. By calling them Islamic State (IS) we sort of give them legitimacy as a state.

Daesh is an acronym stemming from al-Dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa’al Sham, which translates as Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (Syria). So the meaning is not State its State inside other State what gives them slightly less legitimacy.

2. So while Daesh from its meaning is pretty much the same as ISIL it also sounds like an insult.
Because it sounds like the Arabic words Daes ("one who crushes something underfoot") and Dahes ("one who sows discord"). And also just because its an acronym.

According to The Guardian, the acronym has even become an Arabic word in its own right, with its plural "daw'aish" meaning "bigots who impose their views on others".

@txag70 isn't irritating the barbarians the unspoken main reason for calling ISIS a state that could be called ISIL or just IS? I mean i am all for the "respecting your enemies" thing but seriously they are intolerant vandals who behead journalists and destroy World Heritage Sites. The least they deserve is to be, ironically, called the name of a pagan goddess.

@txag70 “TL;DR we are to blame for a lot of this mess because Bush booted Saddam after supporting him for decades, creating a power vacuum.”

Almost: Bush booted Saddam, then didn't send in a real occupying force to keep order, then didn't start a Marshall-Plan for Iraq to rebuild it.

Everyone forgets just how many forces stayed in Europe after WW2, and how long, in order to maintain order. Everyone forgets what was involved in the Marshall-Plan. That's *why* you don't just go in guns-a-blazin: it's expensive, laborious, and time-consuming.

[BTW - I do agree with everything you said. I'm just adding in my own $0.02. ;) ]

@txag70 I Disagree that most of the fault lays on America. We do need to pick up the slack, and a large amount of it can be blamed on us, there is still a lot of the blame can be put on, well, everyone! If we weren't there, the Arab Spring would have still popped up, Syria and Iraq would have fallen apart (this is arguable), and ISIS or and ISIS-like state would have still emerged (maybe pinning less blame on America and even more on Israel, Iraq, and Assadi-Syria).

I also disagree with if Bush the 1st overthrew Saddam if he could it would have made Iraq fall apart. I think a good amount of the instability in Iraq came from years of sectarian tension that blew up, with the American Invasion being the straw that broke the camel's back (or in this case, the anvil that broke the camel's back), and if Bust the 1st overthrew Saddam, I'd argue he could have calmed Iraq, at least somewhat. (Although jpwcandide does have a point where a more efficient Marshall-Plan and Occupation makes all the difference)

@Ferrari27 I'm not really a leftist. I am in the sense that FDR was. I loathe the left-wing identity politics of the modern-day Democratic party. I simply support a strong regulatory policy against Wall St. Fraudsters and their Corporate robber barons, along with a single-payer healthcare system and a MUCH higher estate tax instead of income taxes. I actually think we need to raise the social security age (it was not designed for retirement, it was designed as a crutch for people who lived past life expectancy) to a bare minimum of 70, if not 73. I think a lot of the problems in the black American community can only be solved by -- that's right -- the black American community.

I long for a return to the days of high taxes on the wealthy, corporations, and capital gains, and public works projects instead of welfare (like the CCC, TVA, Eisenhower's Interstate Project). I STRONGLY support a greater funding of our national labs and NASA.

And left-wing foreign policy leaves a lot to be desired. Realpolitik in naked American self-interest is the best way to go.

@txag70 No doubt, the US is to blame for much, and Iraq 2003 is in a lot of ways, what caused Al-Qaeda to spread to Iraq, and then eventually lead to the creation of ISIS.

But putting the blame soley on the US isn't correct either, there's a lot of parties with plenty of responsibility to the creation of Al-Qaeda to start of with, Soviet union, the Daoud regime and Saudi arabia are the main culprits in that story. Then moving to the present, Assad is plenty responsible for the insurgency in Iraq, and I guess what goes around comes around. However ISIS rise was due to the morons the Iraqi shias (mainly) elected to lead the country.

As for the situation in Syria, only Assads regime can be blaimed, nobody made him go full auto on the protests.

@Zervo I said a large portion lies at the hands of the US. Not all of it by any means.

The only reason ISIS exists is because we created a mid-east power vacuum after explicitly ousting Saddam, and implicitly doing so for Qaddafi, Mukarak, Assad, etc.

Had saddam stayed in power, he would have destroyed much of what is ISIS today, and worked as a buffer against an increasingly aggressive Iran. Stable evil > unstable evil, in the same way that a burning house is better than a wildfire.

@txag70 There's no power vaccum and never was. Only an incompetent and corrupt government, that only ever catered to Shia Muslims (the majority in Iraq). And left sunnis in the gutter (Kurds too, but they are a slightly different story due to autonomy). Then they go on and massacre sunnis in peacefull protests. Despite US pressure not to.

ISIS comes along and give the sunnis an offer to good to refuse.. well, at the time atleast.

Had Saddam remained in power, ISIS as we know it wouldn't exist, and there'd be little to no Al-Qaeda activity in Iraq, yes. Had the Iraqis gotten either 3 seperate states, OR elected a reasonable government, atleast one that wasn't completley ignoring or worse yet, outright shooting at like 1/3 (or so) of the country's population, it'd make a difference.

Saddam however was a looneybin with no real friends, just like Khaddafi.. Assad is a Russian ally, but hey.. However there were no realistic reason for the US to oust Mubarak.

@txag70 Except you are wrong, but not because of ignorance or any short coming you have that I don't.
Dictatorships occur with or without outside intervention. Egypt isn't the result of American intervention. The military took over on its own. Burma isn't the result of American intervention. A school teacher inspired fear.
The revolutions in the middle east isn't the unwanted result of American intervention. It is a natural evolution towards other forms of government. Unfortunately, it isn't a democratic government that has taken over. For example, the Taliban took over Afghanistan, using a mountain region as a spring board. The US never helped as far as I know. No, the intervention of the world can help prevent suffering, and the current crisis should be a lesson for the rest of the world.

"Tornio (Finland) (AFP) - Hundreds of predominantly Iraqi migrants who have travelled through Europe to reach Finland are turning back, saying they don't want to stay in the sparsely-populated country on Europe's northern frontier because it's too cold and boring."

@Unka_Oogie I can't say they are completely wrong, but it is a ridiculous complaint. If they don't want to be here, I am fine with them leaving. I feel sorry for the Iraqi immigrants who have been established here for awhile (I don't think there are many) with these others giving them bad reputation.

If you're looking for something positive, at least we'll be able to see who really is in the need of help and who's only trying to improve their living conditions... It inevitably makes you wonder what is true and what's not about this crisis. It's also sad, that some people complain about food, while others are still being killed in the war areas.

If they are anything like how the media portray them: Seeking a better life rather than simply peace/be out of a war torn country, then I cannot care about them.
I understand wishing to not have to worry about your life so much, but every time the news talk about it, it's always "Everyone should help them, they are refugees!" But when they show images, they always appear as "We want to go to these specific countries (Who happen to have benefits), and nowhere else!" And I am just tired of hearing of it. I want to hide under a rock and want it to just blow away. It's depressing, there are no truly right actions or wishes, and no words can describe how crappy Every.Single.Thing is about all of this

@Tay-Tech You know, you don't have to rely on the media portraits - especially not on those of a select few media outlets - there are many welcome centres all across Europe and you can volunteer there, and actually get to know some of those people. And, yes, chances are that they hope they'll be able to get an education and work, and have a normal family life. You know, become productive citizens instead of staying refugees for the rest of their life. That personal desire is independent from their right to claim asylum and their right to have that claim evaluated fairly, and accepted or denied based on their actual situation. Our nations signed the relevant treaties and made laws based on those treaties. Only, we never bothered to harmonize our approach - not when there was no war close to Europe in sight, and not during the last three years when it was obvious we should be doing something.

@Vangeln All I am trying to say is: You lost so much, usually that humbles people, or make them learn the value of every little thing. Rather than just being happy with at least getting one thing and even a chance to get more without burdening other nations too heavily. Rather than waiting for a chance for said nations to act and give them a place to live, all the video footage the media shows portrays them as trying to force their way into countries of their choosing

@Tay-Tech Have you seen the damage? Do you know exactly what they have left at home? It's nothing.

I wish people would stop trying to explain why these people deserve to be treated like shit. Its not greedy to want to go to a economically and politically stable country. Its asking for what most people here were born into and take for granted.

How would you feel? Would you really want the worst for yourself? You already have no home, no livelihood, no anything. Why wouldn't you want to go somewhere you get help, and have some stability and maybe even a future to look forward to?

You should WANT to help as much as possible. Because they don't deserve this life any less than us.

@Linaste Usually, that tends to humble people, make them appreciate having at least Something again a bit more. One might even hope it would lead them to have a bit more patience whilst they are in a safe environment, give a nation to act.

It's not so much saying they deserve to be treated like shit, as much as just saying the image I, personally, get from what the media in my nation shows: News anchors say help them, their current treatment is bad, video footage they show says they are willing to just try and take what they want/go where they want.

And I do not know how I would feel, I have not been through what they have. Have you?

I should not want anything specific purely because of peer pressure. Aside from this comment, I am no longer going to even try to defend my comment, for I have a feeling it would only create more unneeded conflict because it is not someone else's view

@Linaste In Norway we had nothing in one sixth of the country after the Germans had used the Scorched Earth tactic. The refugees came back, built up everything.

The trouble with these "refugees" is that they aren't. They're immigrants.

And if I get in the same situation, I sure as H would want to fight both Assad and ISIS, not run thru peaceful country after peaceful country until I just so happened to come to end up in the one with the highest welfare check.